<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Claim for Performance Pay Rejected: Not an Operational Debt Under IBC, Appeal Dismissed Due to Ambiguity in Notices.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83337</link>
    <description>Maintainability of an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: The claim for performance pay, being subject to subjective assessment criteria, does not constitute an &quot;operational debt&quot; or a &quot;debt&quot; under the IBC. The Appellant issued both Form 3 and Form 4 notices u/s 8 of the IBC, indicating uncertainty about the nature of the claim. The issuance of multiple notices u/s 8 does not make the claim payable as an operational debt. The claim raised by the Operational Creditor does not qualify as an operational debt, and hence, the initiation of CIRP u/s 9 against the Corporate Debtor is not justified. The Adjudicating Authority&#039;s rejection .....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Nov 2024 08:01:33 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Nov 2024 08:01:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Claim for Performance Pay Rejected: Not an Operational Debt Under IBC, Appeal Dismissed Due to Ambiguity in Notices.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83337</link>
      <description>Maintainability of an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: The claim for performance pay, being subject to subjective assessment criteria, does not constitute an &quot;operational debt&quot; or a &quot;debt&quot; under the IBC. The Appellant issued both Form 3 and Form 4 notices u/s 8 of the IBC, indicating uncertainty about the nature of the claim. The issuance of multiple notices u/s 8 does not make the claim payable as an operational debt. The claim raised by the Operational Creditor does not qualify as an operational debt, and hence, the initiation of CIRP u/s 9 against the Corporate Debtor is not justified. The Adjudicating Authority&#039;s rejection .....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Nov 2024 08:01:33 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>